If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

The Supreme Court ruled on procedural grounds in the baker case that allow Colorado to go through it all again if it chooses.

Here is the language added to the Utah law:

34A-5-111.Application to the freedom of expressive association and the free688 exercise of religion.689 This chapter may not be interpreted to infringe upon the freedom of expressive690 association or the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United691 States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 4, and 15 of the Utah Constitution.692 Section 10. Section 34A-5-112 is enacted to read:693 34A-5-112.Religious liberty protections -- Expressing beliefs and commitments in694 workplace -- Prohibition on employment actions against certain employee speech.695 (1) An employee may express the employee's religious or moral beliefs and696 commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on697 equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the698 employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential699 business-related interests of the employer.700 (2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or701 retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and702 conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or703 expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or704 personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the705 expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related706 interests of the employer.

I don't know if there were any problems with this prior to this change in the law. I really don't have any problem with this as long as it applies equally to matters in addition to religion. As a former employment law lawyer, I see this as almost impossible to enforce. Essential business related interests must include image, profit, and workplace harmony. Then again, plaintiff lawyers never lack for creativity.

I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.

I think the LDS Church should get out of the wedding business. From a religious standpoint, I believe mixing the wedding stuff with a sacred ordinance many times makes sacred ordinance second to all of the wedding stuff.

I think we are headed in this direction.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

Originally Posted by Applejack

Why? There really is nothing to be afraid of re:gay marriage and the temple. And I don't think the mormon church wants to "get out" of the marriage business. I mean, they might stop marrying couples, but why do this? For legal liability reasons? For pragmatic reasons? I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by UtahsMrSports

Define "getting out of the marriage business"....

No marriages in lds chapels?

I haven't thought about this for some time. I've heard the idea floated that maybe the temple sealing (or the Catholic/Episcopalian/Adventist/Presbyterian ceremonies) should be sort of a church blessing on the civil ceremony, which would be done outside of a church. In many countries only the state has authority to perform marriages, and the couples involved later go to church to "solemnize" the union. The new policy actually allows that, so it is effectively, if not intentionally, a step in that direction.

I don't know about weddings in chapels. I suppose that if a gay couple wanted to be married in a chapel and were refused, it's not outlandish to imagine a legal challenge based on state law. If a chapel is open to the public and state law requires equal access, there might be a case, and the church might just say, "No more weddings in our chapels." But I'm speculating off the top of my head. I really hope it never comes to that.

Originally Posted by concerned

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

I have no idea. I doubt the church would get into that level of detail, which would only cause more problems, IMO. Enforcement would become kind of ridiculous.

Last edited by LA Ute; 05-16-2019 at 03:14 PM.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I think you are more trusting in the reasonableness of people and in the logic of law than I am. More trusting in the constitution. The constitutions seems rather flexible to this outsider.

I'm not saying I think anything crazy is imminent; I can just imagine crazy things happening in the future.

It's true that I am more patriotic than you. Thanks for the aknowledgement.

The Constitution is pretty vague about a lot of things and completely silent about a whole host of things. But on freedom of religion it is pretty clear. The government is not going to be able to dictate who religions choose to marry.

Q: what happens if you get married in a civil ceremony and have a sealing later that day? Can you make the traditional dash to the hotel after the wedding breakfast, or do you have to wait until after the sealing?

Short answer is the dash would certainly be allowed. The law of chastity as stated by the church is that you have no sexual relations except with the person you are "legally and lawfully" married. If you are married civilly you aren't breaking the law of chastity. Pre-reception disappointment is still on the table.

I’ve seen receptions but never a marriage ceremony in a chapel. Is that a thing?

No weddings in LDS chapels. They have to be in another room. It's a long-standing policy. That's all I know about it. [EDIT: I mean the chapel portion of the building. Relief Society room, cultural hall, etc., are all ok for weddings.]

Last edited by LA Ute; 05-17-2019 at 10:09 AM.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”